Faith transcends logic

@kellyjay said
Cult leaders pass off lies as truth, trying to get people to buy into things not true.

"Lies" in whose eyes?

@kellyjay said
Cult leaders pass off lies as truth, trying to get people to buy into things not true. Simply pushing a little truth to obscure the whole truth to mask a lie is a common thing and not limited to cult leaders.

You keep changing the topic: faith vs logic. Not your vague ideas on "truth".

Religion praises forsaking logic in favor of faith, as do cult leaders. One may not always know what is "true" but anyone (hopefully) can understand when claims are not logical.

Consider the Heaven's Gate cult, whose members killed themselves believing this would gain them entry to an alien space craft. Their leaders taught them human bodies were merely containers that could be abandoned in favor of a higher physical existence.

Sound familiar?

It's easy to dismiss their beliefs as illogical but their "faith" trumped logic. Same with religion.

@vivify said
You keep changing the topic: faith vs logic. Not your vague ideas on "truth".

Religion praises forsaking logic in favor of faith, as do cult leaders. One may not always know what is "true" but anyone (hopefully) can understand when claims are not logical.

Consider the Heaven's Gate cult, whose members killed themselves believing this would gain them entry to an ali ...[text shortened]... t's easy to dismiss their beliefs as illogical but their "faith" trumped logic. Same with religion.

I think the 'problem' arises not when faith trumps logic, but when it trumps life, where people think some putative Absolute Truth justifies them in killing people, and either one's own or someone else's life is 'sacrificed' to a cause, e.g., when the Mason Family brutally murdered people in pursuit of a toxic ideology, or when Islamofascists shoot up a newspaper office in Paris, or when people commit mass suicide in a Jim-Jones-style thought-control-camp (we just saw another example of this sort of thing in the news...) .

This is one of the points where I disagree fundamentally with KellyJay, who is stuck on truth. Truth is the menu, not the meal, the map, not the territory; any genuine follower of Jesus would know this. Jesus did not teach that you have to believe in any truths; he taught that you have to live in a certain way, with love in your heart. This is nothing to do with truth as such.

But look at what organised religion made of this: The Five Solas, five 'truths' you must believe to be called a "Christian":

https://reformationbiblecollege.org/blog/the-five-solas

This is where it all goes wrong.

@mchill said

I just made it the issue. 😏

OK; neither science nor logic proves or disprove the existence of :

a. a Supreme Being
b. the identity of a Supreme Being with:
b1: the God of Abraham
b2: Zeus
b3: Ahura Mazda
b4: Shiva
b4: Quetzlquatl
b5: other
b6: any or all of the above

Is there something else to discuss?

@kellyjay said
You accept all that is here is a mindlessness guided universe, am I wrong? Do you accept there was nothing that started the universe? Do you accept an uncaused universe?

Calling those things you disagree with fallacious, pseudoscience, and even factual errors is not an argument it is simply degrading. So when you are not in agreement you belittle.

A contradiction sh ...[text shortened]... material is not explained by just the material, then what is required is a transcendent explanation.

You raise several points, so I shall respond to them separately.


You accept all that is here is a mindlessness guided universe, am I wrong?


There is no evidence for transcendent guidance in the universe.


Do you accept there was nothing that started the universe? Do you accept an uncaused universe?


None of the above. Whether the universe had a beginning or no beginning, a transcendent cause or no cause, is, IMO, undefined and of no consequence. Asking whether the universe had a cause is like division by zero: it's undefined. The concept of causality or having a beginning applies to processes in the universe, not to the universe as a whole. Asking whether the universe had a beginning is like asking what is north of the North Pole.



Calling those things you disagree with fallacious, pseudoscience, and even factual errors is not an argument it is simply degrading. So when you are not in agreement you belittle.


If you feel belittled, it's your problem, not mine. The so-called evidence you provide is, shall we say, inadequate. Just for one example: an empty tomb, which (I presume) you take to be convincing evidence that Jesus was God and rose from the dead. This is not evidence that anyone was ever in it, much less that whoever might have been in it exited it by some extra-ordinary means.


A contradiction shows error,

A meaningless platitude, which does not require any further response.

if the immaterial and the material is not explained by just the material, then what is required is a transcendent explanation.

I deny this. The reason I deny this is that in times past, we did not understand how earthquakes, plagues, the appearance of comets in the sky, droughts, floods, locusts, eclipses, and many other natural phenomena, come about. In times past, people attributed such events to divine wrath. In the meantime, we know what causes these events and it's nothing to do with divine interference in nature. It is not necessary to assume transcendent causality wherever we find a naturalistic explanation insufficient: it means we should keep looking for naturalistic explanations.

@vivify said
You keep changing the topic: faith vs logic. Not your vague ideas on "truth".

Religion praises forsaking logic in favor of faith, as do cult leaders. One may not always know what is "true" but anyone (hopefully) can understand when claims are not logical.

Consider the Heaven's Gate cult, whose members killed themselves believing this would gain them entry to an ali ...[text shortened]... t's easy to dismiss their beliefs as illogical but their "faith" trumped logic. Same with religion.

I'm not changing the topic, we get faith by the things we see and work out logically, there are pieces of evidence that we draw on that gives us things to put our faith in. The issue some have is that they think evidence only fits one point of view, when in fact even in criminal trials once anything is entered into the trial it is evidence that both sides have to deal with. There isn't anything that is totally materialistic or immaterialistic alone it is all part of the puzzle and as such all of the pieces must fit.

As I said, getting a little truth and not the whole picture to cover a lie or error is a dangerous thing. The closer a lie is to the truth the easier it is for the lie to go unnoticed.

@moonbus said
You raise several points, so I shall respond to them separately.


You accept all that is here is a mindlessness guided universe, am I wrong?


There is no evidence for transcendent guidance in the universe.


Do you accept there was nothing that started the universe? Do you accept an uncaused universe?


None of the above. Whether the universe had ...[text shortened]... aturalistic explanation insufficient: it means we should keep looking for naturalistic explanations.

"There is no evidence for transcendent guidance in the universe."

Explain the instructional information guiding life through a mindless process!

" IMO, undefined and of no consequence. "

So you say, not addressing the questions by blowing them off is not addressing the questions, it is running from them.

You want to stick your head in the sand that is on you.

@mchill said
For the last few months, I've read (with mild amusement) the posts of the folks here who dwell on a scriptural line, scientific theory or breakthrough, proudly displaying them here in these forums as rock - solid evidence that there is no God, and that one's faith in an omnipresent, supreme being is misplaced. I'm sorry to rain on your parade's here, but things just don't work ...[text shortened]... he existence of God - you'd be better off grabbing an Informant and playing through some G.M. games.

'Faith transcends logic.'

In fact, faith ignores logic. There is no logical reason to think or believe that one god or group of gods is better than any other, in this regard we for the far greater part adopt the religion into which we are born. Our religious beliefs don't come from 'us', they are entirely reliant upon external influences. There is an essential dilemma, here; once we have faith, we cannot see our faith objectively, (or logically) In order to do that, we must first lose our faith.

Faith also ignores the process of scientific discovery which we as a species are currently undertaking, which contradicts all religious belief, for example in regard to how our own species first came to be. Faith must by definition be subjective, and must ignore objective truth as it is presented to us. Science must by definition be objective, and seek only truth.

@kellyjay said
I'm not changing the topic, we get faith by the things we see and work out logically

You didn't "logically" work out that a talking snake brought the downfall of mankind by tricking a naked woman into eating a fruit, whose children populated earth by having sex with their siblings. You accepted such an illogical idea because your faith requires you to do so.

Don't equate faith from observation with religious faith; they're not the same.

"We walk by faith and not by sight".

@indonesia-phil said
'Faith transcends logic.'

In fact, faith ignores logic. There is no logical reason to think or believe that one god or group of gods is better than any other, in this regard we for the far greater part adopt the religion into which we are born. Our religious beliefs don't come from 'us', they are entirely reliant upon external influences. There is an essential dilem ...[text shortened]... ective truth as it is presented to us. Science must by definition be objective, and seek only truth.

Science must by definition be objective and seek only truth.


Science is the search for FACT, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for the philosophy books are in the library. (Am I good at this or what!?) 😏

@kellyjay said
"There is no evidence for transcendent guidance in the universe."

Explain the instructional information guiding life through a mindless process!

" IMO, undefined and of no consequence. "

So you say, not addressing the questions by blowing them off is not addressing the questions, it is running from them.

You want to stick your head in the sand that is on you.

Not every question deserves an answer. Some questions are silly: 'isn't the present King of France a tadpole flagelator?' is a silly question. If you answer either 'yes' or 'no', you affirm that there is a present King of France (whether or not he flagellates tadpoles). Rejecting the question is the proper answer, because there is no present King of France. There's no there there.

There are no instructions guiding life. It's just like retro-grade motions of the planets or the present King of France. There is no there there. There is nothing to explain (beyond what has already been explained in the other thread on the origin of life).

In the ancient Greek scheme of things, Chaos or Mother Night is eternal; gods, goddesses, titans, and humans came later. There is no reason to prefer the Hebrew myth over the Greek one. There is, moreover, no reason to accept any origin-myth at all, neither that the universe had a beginning nor that it had no beginning.

It is not about sticking one's head in the sand. It's about acknowledging that we do not have to know who made the first move in the first chess game ever played in the distant past in order to understand the rules of chess now. Same goes for laws of nature: we can investigate laws of nature right now, we do not have to have a theory or hypothesis or myth about how the universe began to understand the chemical and physical forces at work in the universe now (chemical bonds, electromagnetism, genetics, gravity, etc.).

@fmf said
I hear what you are saying. But, no. I don't think they are complementary. I think they are akin to two different realms. I think people of faith talking about how their faith and logic are complementary are actually simply being performative. I think they are just trying to signal how very, very, very certain they are about their faith.

Not to be crass, but I don't see how having a discussion with you about faith is worthwhile since you claim not to have any, nor do you believe there's any validity to biblical faith.

Take for example Hebrews 11:3 which says in part, "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,.."

Not a word about logic being the agent through which one understands the world's were framed.

But logic and faith are complimentary in this way; logic dictates that only through faith can understanding of truth be obtained, since logic is primarily a function of reason while faith is a function of the spirit.

Something else you don't believe exists, even though you are a living spirit, albeit void of the Spirit of God, which is why faith doesn't work for you.

You need to be born again. 🤔

@moonbus said
There is, moreover, no reason to accept any origin-myth at all, neither that the universe had a beginning nor that it had no beginning.

On the contrary, there is a reason to ask the question about origins, and it's not a "silly question".

One can no more dispel the idea that all that exists had an origin than one can dispel the idea that all that exists has always existed in one form or another.

What is silly is the presumption that one can answer the question based on insufficient evidence.

And in keeping with the tread topic, logic cannot provide the evidence necessary for one to know for certain one way or the other.

That's where faith steps in.

Our physical perceptions inform us that the physical universe does in fact exist, but they cannot inform us as to how, when or why it does.

The "silly question" is the one that is not asked.

Does all that exists have an origin in time, or did matter always exist?

The answer doesn't lie in the realm of logic or science because both are woefully inadequate tools of reason based on the finite nature of man.

Again, in steps faith, which is a far superior mechanism at man's disposal for understanding the infinite than logic, reason or science because those tools cannot be used to grasp God.

@josephw said
Not to be crass, but I don't see how having a discussion with you about faith is worthwhile since you claim not to have any, nor do you believe there's any validity to biblical faith.

Take for example Hebrews 11:3 which says in part, "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,.."

Not a word about logic being the agent through which one u ...[text shortened]... void of the Spirit of God, which is why faith doesn't work for you.

You need to be born again. 🤔

Ok, thanks for your interesting perspective.

@indonesia-phil said
'Faith transcends logic.'

In fact, faith ignores logic. There is no logical reason to think or believe that one god or group of gods is better than any other, in this regard we for the far greater part adopt the religion into which we are born. Our religious beliefs don't come from 'us', they are entirely reliant upon external influences. There is an essential dilem ...[text shortened]... ective truth as it is presented to us. Science must by definition be objective, and seek only truth.

Faith doesn't ignore logic, logically readable code that has instructions built into it was not done mindlessly, you think that is a false statement show YOUR LOGIC.